Ruhena Parker

Ruhena Parker

Ruhena qualified as a Solicitor in 2009. Her practice is exclusively in criminal investigations and litigation, from the police station interview to serious Crown Court trials and judicial review.  

She has advised and represented individuals charged with a range of offences including, Rape, Sexual Assault, Making Indecent Pseudo Child Images, Grievous Bodily Harm, Robbery, Fraud, Possession of Firearms and Conspiracy to Supply Drugs.

Ruhena undertakes a high proportion of her own trial advocacy in the Magistrates’ court, and has been appointed by the Court on numerous occasions as trial “section 38” advocate for those defendants who are unrepresented. Ruhena also regularly represents vulnerable clients, including youths and those suffering from mental health issues. She has experience as an advocate at Mental Health Tribunals and Hospital Managers Meetings representing clients detained under Section 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act.

Ruhena understands that criminal allegations can have a debilitating effect on her client’s personal and working lives, and so takes a robust approach during both police investigations and Crown prosecutions. She is known as a tenacious and determined advocate. Whether at the police station or in court, she is always committed to obtaining the very best result for her clients.

Ruhena represents both private and publically funded clients.

Prominent Cases

  • Ricketts v Basildon Magistrates [2011] 1 Cr App Rep 15 - A Criminal Judicial Review test case to determine whether removing donated goods outside a charity shop was in fact a crime of theft.
  • R v BB Rape - client accused of raping a 13-year old girl with two others. Client and both co-defendants raised the defence of consent and were all acquitted unanimously after a 7-day trial on all counts.
  • R v G – Stalking & Harassment – The client was charged with stalking; his defence was that the complainant had fabricated an allegation through fear from her family finding out they were in a relationship. After extensive defence enquiries of Skype messages, emails and text messages dating back to 2013, the defence were able to prove that the complainant and defendant had in fact been in a relationship. The complainant accepted the defence material was accurate and informed the police on the first day of trial, that she had fabricated the allegation. The prosecution offered no evidence.
  • R v D – Possession of bladed article - Appealed the decision of District Judge who imposed a 4 Month Detention and Training Order on a 14-year old for their second offence, where the client had a legitimate expectation of a community order. After an expedited appeal hearing within 10 days, the sentence was quashed and the client was re-sentenced to a 12-month community order.
  • R v H – Possession of a bladed article – This client was charged with having a bladed article in the communual stairwell of his flat. Representations were made to the Crown Prosecution Service that the stairwell did not constitute a public place, which led to the Crown offering no evidence at court.
  • R v S – Sexual Assault – The client was charged with sexually assaulting a female at her home address, whilst attending as handy-man. The first trial resulted in a hung jury, the case was re-tried and again resulted in a hung jury, the client was acquitted of the charge.
  • R v G – Fraud – The client was charged in relation to fraudulently obtaining money into her bank account. Her defence was that she had been manipulated and ‘conned’ by another male. Extensive defence enquiries provided that the male existed and had previous convictions for similar offences. The Crown Prosecution Service were forced to offer no evidence on the first day of trial.